Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

I'm in the states' rights camp on this argument. The era of Jim Crow is over. And the "voter suppression" charges that Democrats love to accuse the Republicans of doing is a shadow of a sliver compared to the actual institutional segregation of the South in the 60s that legitimately prevented blacks from voting.

The fact that current Federal statute explicitly treats certain states and municipalities as inferior (which once again underscores the futility of the "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment) due to a history of racism is pretty outrageous. It's comparable to the EU forcing Germany to pay a "Holocaust tax" due to Hitler and Nazi Germany's barbaric actions 70 years ago (fictional example).

On legal grounds, I think it would be judicial activism if the Supreme Court struck down certain sections of the Voting Rights Act, but I think Congress should stop reauthorizing the portions of the Act that require certain jurisdictions to submit their election law and regulations for approval in Federal courts.

Either keep it in place or move towards Federally set election laws that all States must abide by. Voter suppression is a reality and it was evident in tactics used by the GOP in 2012.

Aren't you just so bitter?

__________________

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

The Jim Crow era may be over, but all the myriad guises of voter suppression is still very much alive. It may well be, today, a sliver of what it once was, but that says far more about how pervasive and institutional it once was than anything else. It still is very much an active ans serious problem today. This is not some relic from the past but an active law that today is protecting and preserving the Constitutional rights of many voters across the U.S. Shelby County, AL, one of the plaintiffs, has even just recently been cited for various voting rights violations.

States and municipalities were singled out arbitrarily but rather, because of endemic and pervasive voting rights violations. Nor is this some permanent Scarlet Letter lingering from a bygone era. States and municipalities can come out from under their voting rights Act obligations upon showing a history free of violations. Should they continue, today, to violate, as has Shelby County, then they rightfully and duly remain under its obligations until such time that they evidence due regard for voters rights. The "equal protection" clause of the 14th Amendment adheres to individuals, not states or localities per se. That these states and localities were, and still are, violating individual voting rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, it was and is entirely appropriate for the federal government to assure that these individual's rights are duly protected, hence the Voting Rights Act.

I would agree with Rapier that it would be undue judicial activism, to borrow that rather vague phase, to undo an act of Congress that was just very recently overwhelmingly reaffirmed (2007?). SCJ Scalia had some rather disturbingly broad comments impugning the motivation of Congress in reauthorizing this legislation with vast bi-partisan majorities that would open the door to the SC passing judgement on pretty much any legislation based upon presumption of malice in motivation alone. Any ruling should be far more factual and hinge solely on actual violation of the Constitution. I don't think there is, and that the Voting Rights Act is still a current, viable, effective and Constitutional piece of law, but its the opinion of nine other folks that matters.

Either keep it in place or move towards Federally set election laws that all States must abide by. Voter suppression is a reality and it was evident in tactics used by the GOP in 2012.

There are indeed broader parts (Section 7?) of the Voting Rights Act that do essentially apply across the nation, but also specific targeted parts (Section 5?) that preemptively apply to states and municipalities that have a factual proven record of voter rights suppression in all its various forms, be they overtly (poll taxes, literacy rules) or more subvertly (too many to list, which is the very point of this provision).

However, the long list of recent significant violations indicates that this is a present problem that still requires being addressed by all the appropriate sections of the Voting Rights Act. Of course, should states evidence a compliance with the provisions of the Voting Rights Act, they can then be relieved of Section 5 requirements.

PS, this isn't specifically a southern states issue as various municipalities in other areas of the country fall under the various provisions too, even if southern state are by far the most egregious offenders past and present.

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

"My philosophy as a businessman has always been to take care of the people who make me successful. It has always been "we" in my business conversations with others. At a certain point in a successful business it behooves one to make sure those doing a good job of supporting you are not struggling to make ends meet."

Either keep it in place or move towards Federally set election laws that all States must abide by. Voter suppression is a reality and it was evident in tactics used by the GOP in 2012.

Someone forgot to take their meds. If you look at facts from the 2012 election you'll find numerous examples of voter turnout that exceeded the number of registered voters and all of them are in districts that Obama won. There are numerous examples of democrat election judges refusing to allow republican judges access as required by law. Wonder why? If the GOP is suppressing votes they sure suck at it.

Furthermore, every election cycle you hear about how the democrats are deliberately trying to suppress overseas ballots for our military. In 2012, they sent out absentee ballots after the deadline. They do crap like this all the time. Do tell me again how it is the GOP and not the Dems that try and suppress the vote?

I know, voter suppression is a myth. At this point, not allowing early and late voting 5 days before and after election day = voter suppression. How dare you expect people to vote on election day!!!

__________________

“They have the guns and therefore we are for peace and for reformation through the ballot. When we have the guns then it will be through the bullet.” - Saul Alinsky, quoting Lenin

“I wanted [Jimmy] Carter in and I wanted [Ford] out,” comedian Chevy Chase would later admit of his mocking Ford impersonation on "Saturday Night Live", “and I figured look, we're reaching millions of people every weekend, why not do it."

Yes. The substantive standard still need apply. To think that voting "irregularities" based on some protected factor, be it race, religion, gender, etc, do not exist in this country is silly. There should be wider observation/evaluation of locations and factors. I side with the arguments that the specific coverage formula rather than that the substantive standard need not apply.

__________________

"The existence of life is a highly overrated phenomenon."
-- Dr Manhattan